Opposition to Request for Subpoenae Feb1 A848

8/3/2019 Opposition to Request for Subpoenae Feb1 A848

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesCongress of the Philippines FE'g. 1 W(2..

'12 JAN 32 'A8 :48SenateSITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OFRENATO C. CORONA ASCHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES.REPRESENTATIVES NIELC. TUPAS, JR.) JOSEPHEMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R. TANADA III,REYNALDO V. UMALI,ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.

Case No. 002-2011

x--------------...----------...--------- ..----------..----------------------------..-- ...-x

oPPosrr ION TO THE REQUESTFOR ISSUANCE OFSUBPOENAE

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona"), by counsel, and as a measure ofextreme caution dictated by the unusual circumstances of this case, without waivinghis tight to ftie the appropriate legal remedy to question, among others, the legality of

these proceedings, respectfully stiltes:

OppoJitirm to Requef!jor ISS/lance 0/'5ttbpoenaPage 10/'5


2/5

1. In aRequest for Issuance of Subpoenae d a t e d : ~ l ]anum-y 2012, the Houseof Representativesseeks the issuance of subpoenaead testificandum and subpoenae duces

tecumto requirethe Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (''BPI''), AyalaAvenue Branch, to testify andbring documents in relation to Bank Account No. 1443-8030-61, purportedly owned by C] Corona and!or hiis wife, Cristina Corona,andreferred to in Exhibits VVV and VVV-l (the ''Bank Account").

2. At the outset, it bears stressing that the requested documents pet1:ainingto said Bank Account does not correspond, or have any relation at all, to ExhibitsVVV and VVV-l, which indicate a different account number from that stated in thesubject Request. Surely, the solicited Bank Account is neither relevant nor material inthis case because nothing presented before the Honorable Impeachment Court wouldeven suggest that the checks were drawn upon the alleged Bank Account.

3. I t is therefore obvious that the testimony of the person named in theRequest and the documents identified therein are dearly intended by the prosec.utionto prove paragraph 2.4 of the Impeachment Complaint, which states:

2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of havmg accumulatedill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping hank accounts withhuge deposits. It has beenreported that Respondent has, a ~ o n g others, a 300-sq.meter apartment in a posh Mega World Property development at the Fort in Taguig.Has he reported this, as he is constitutionally required under Art. XI, Sec. 17 of theConstitution in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)? Isthis acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Sincehis assumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he complied withhis duty of public disclosure? (Emphasis supplied)

4. However, this Honorable Court already ruled that the above paragraph2.4 does not contain statements of ultimate fact and must be deemed excluded fromthe Impeachment Trial. This Honorable Court categorically disallowed the

Oppositlol/ to Reque.l'tjorIsS1lance i f ubpoenaPage 2 if5


3/5

prosecution from introducing any evidence relating to said paragraph 2.4. On thisscore alone, the subject Request must perforce be denied for being irrelevant,

immaterial, and disallowed by this Honorable Court.

5. As have been always be emphasized by CJ. Corona, Article II of theImpeachment Complaint, merely charges CJ Corona with the following:

RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLA.TIONOF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THEPUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TOTHE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS,LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDERSEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

6. Under Article II of the Grounds for lmpeachment, CJ Corona is beingaccused of a single culpable act - his alleged f ~ l j l u r e to disclose to the public hisStatement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), nothing more. Article II doesnot charge him with accumulating ill-gotten wealth andlor graft and corruption.

7. In this regard, CJ Corona njterates that paragraph 2.4 is merely based on"reports" and "suspicion", contrary to the joint verificat1.on of the Complainants thatthe "the allegations therein (the Complaint) are true of our own knowledge." The"reports" and "suspicions" are also contrary to the requirements of the Rules ofCourt, which have suppletory application, that allegations 11:1 the Complaint must he of"ultimate facts." (Sec. 3, Raj e 3).

8. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that paragraph 2.4 of theImpeachme11t Complaint relating to respo11dent's supposed "ill-gotten wealth, assets

Opposition to Requestflrlssuance i fSubpoenaPage 3 if5


4/5

of high values and bank accounts with huge deposits" was forrectly deemed unw11ttenby this Honorable Court in the impeachment complaint.

9. Conside11ng that paragraph 2.4 1S deemed unwntten, any evidencerelating thereto is inadmissible and irrelevant.

10. Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court 'states that 66(e)vidence isadmissible when i t is relev;mt to the i'Jsue and is not excluded by the law orthese rules. "

11. In this case, the testimony of the BPI Manager identified in theRequeston the pUiported bank account of C] Cmol1a andlor his wife, as well as thepresentation thereof,are clearly irrelevant and immaterial to the issLle of whether ornot CJ Corona failed to his disclose his SALN to the public. The presentation of therequested bank documents and testimony of the matters 'subject of the Request aretherefore improper.

12. From the foregoing, it is clear that the Request is nothing more but abrazen attempt to introduce irrelevant and immaterial evidlence i11 these proceedings,in violation of CJ Corona's right to due process.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions of law, Jurisprudence and,

arguments adduced, it is respectfully prayed that this Impeadl1nent Court DENYcomplainants' Request for the Issuance of Subpoenae d a t e ~ 31 January 2012.

Oppositioll to Requestfor lSSIIance ojSubpoena. Page 4 oJ5


5/5

Other reliefs, just or equitable under the c i r c u m s t a r l ~ e s , are likewise prayed for.

Makati for Pasay City, 31 Januaty 2012.

Respectfully Submitted byCounsel for ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona.

OSEM.ROYHIPTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati CityIBP LRN 02570 August 20,2001 (Lifetime)

Roll of Attorneys No. 37065MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176

DENNIS P. MANALOPTRNo. 2666920; 5 Januaty 2011, Makati CityIBP No. 839371; 3 January 2011, Ma1

Opposition to Request for Subpoenae Feb1 A848

Documents

Transcript of Opposition to Request for Subpoenae Feb1 A848